
Trump got what he needed out of Elon Musk
In his role as head of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk spent several months gleefully subjecting parts of the government he doesn't like to an array of metaphorical power tools.
'We spent the weekend feeding USAID [United States Agency for International Development] into the wood chipper,' he wrote on X in February, after pushing to illegally withhold billions of dollars appropriated by Congress to fight famine, care for sick people, and vaccinate children against deadly diseases. 'Could have gone to some great parties. Did that instead.'
A few weeks later, Musk celebrated his accomplishments to date by taking the stage at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference while triumphantly waving a chainsaw overhead.
'This is the chainsaw for bureaucracy,' he yelped, just in case the reference was too subtle for anyone in attendance. 'CHAINSAW!'
On the one hand, Musk's efforts set up some of his businesses to make a bunch of money, and delighted Republican politicians whose idea of 'wasteful' spending is anything that does not make hedge fund executives or car dealership owners wealthier. On the other hand, his White House tenure shaved billions of dollars off his net worth, made it genuinely embarrassing to own a Tesla, and transformed Musk into one of the most reviled political figures in the country.
Now, as Musk leaves the Trump administration and returns to the private sector—and as the two men engage in oafish public meltdowns on their respective social media platforms—the question of whether DOGE was, on balance, 'worth it' for Musk sort of depends on what happens to his portfolio over the next quarter or so.
Already, Musk has embarked on a miniature image rehabilitation tour, framing himself in time-honored reactionary tradition as a tragic victim of his own success. In a soft-lit interview with The Washington Post, he said that DOGE had become the 'whipping boy for everything,' and bemoaned the 'uphill battle' he faced for simply 'trying to improve things in D.C.' In an interview with Ars Technica, Musk admitted that he 'probably did spend a bit too much time on politics,' and expressed eagerness to get back to the business that really matters: presiding over failed SpaceX launches.
As a result, many retrospectives on Musk's time at DOGE read like obituaries, both for the organization and the movement it represents. In a recent Reuters profile, for example, a former DOGE staffer predicted that it would 'fizzle out' without Musk, and analogized the remaining employees to 'kids joining a startup that will go out of business in four months.'
But talking about DOGE in the past tense is wrong for several reasons. First, Musk's actions will continue to inflict pain and suffering long after Trump has left the White House. One expert estimates that Musk's cuts to USAID have already resulted in about 300,00 preventable deaths, most of them children. Even if the $180 billion that DOGE says it has cut is a generous overestimate, people still died because Elon Musk decided it would be fun to cosplay as the president for a few weeks.
Second, Musk's efforts to pillage the federal government will not end the moment he leaves town. A recent Washington Post analysis estimated that Musk's companies are propped up by $38 billion in government funding. Although Trump has threatened to stop doing business with Musk during their ongoing posting war—much, much more on that below—SpaceX in particular is integral to the modern U.S. space program, parts of which would grind to a halt without the (non-exploding versions of) Musk's rockets. Reluctant though Trump may be to keep paying out on these contracts, it would presumably be even more embarrassing for him to leave NASA without a viable in-house method of retrieving astronauts from space.
Finally, DOGE was not and was never going to be a one-off effort to, as the conservative activist Grover Norquist once put it, make the government small enough to 'drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.' For decades, Republicans, at the behest of their corporate donors, have pushed the idea that government should be run like a business, and insisted that the legitimacy of any government expenditure depends on the associated return on investment. Only if elected officials do something about the scourges of wasteful spending, inefficient regulation, and dastardly bureaucracy, the argument goes, can America ever hope to reach its full potential.
But Republicans face the same basic challenge every time they try to follow through on this promise: Although voters theoretically support the idea of making government more efficient, the real-world cuts Republicans would make to effectuate that goal are wildly unpopular. Normal people don't want to gut the National Park Service or the U.S. Postal Service, for example. They don't support making it easier for big banks to rip off consumers, and they definitely don't like GOP politicians threatening to take Sesame Street off the air.
By outsourcing much of this unseemly work to Musk and DOGE, Republican lawmakers found a possible solution to their vexing PR problem: a method of speed-running some of the more controversial aspects of their policy agenda, but without having to cast costly votes to implement it.
Now Musk is learning the hard way that although he was using the Republican Party to enrich himself, the Republican Party was using him, too. Republican lawmakers are attempting to pass Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill,' a budget reconciliation bill that would result in some 10.9 million fewer people with access to health insurance by 2034, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Although the bill would cut some $1.3 trillion in federal spending over a decade, it's still projected to add an additional $2.4 trillion to the national debt over that same period, thanks to a cool $3.7 trillion in tax cuts.
Musk at first described himself as 'disappointed' by the bill's price tag, which he said 'undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing.' When his opinion failed to persuade the White House (or Republican leadership on Capitol Hill) to change course, Musk began lashing out, calling the 'Big Ugly Bill' a 'disgusting abomination,' and vowing to help 'fire all politicians who betrayed the American people' by voting for it. He then went on to call for Trump's impeachment, threaten to start a new political party, link Trump to the late Jeffrey Epstein, and otherwise mock the president as a hypocritical, spineless ingrate who would have lost the 2024 election in humiliating fashion if not for Musk's generous infusions of cash.
As it turns out, when you just spent four months torpedoing your brand in pursuit of a shared ideological goal, watching your purported allies immediately abandon it can be a frustrating experience.
In one sense, this constitutes a 'split' with Trump, in that Musk is indeed trashing the signature policy initiative of a president whose candidacy he supported to the tune of more than a quarter-billion dollars. But it is also evidence that Musk never fully grasped the nature of his relationship with Trump in the first place: While he was out there taking the (well-deserved) reputational hits for doing all the slashing and burning that Republicans wanted to see, GOP lawmakers were preparing to do what they always do: abandon this fiscal responsibility song and dance at their earliest convenience, and enact more tax cuts that will disproportionately benefit the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.
When he took the gig at DOGE, Musk imagined himself as a revolutionary, uniquely positioned to identify and cut 'wasteful' spending by virtue of the power in the Republican Party that he believed he'd rightfully purchased. But Musk believed so strongly in his abilities that he forgot that the GOP does not care about saving public resources, but about redirecting that money to its political allies instead. Even if this iteration of DOGE 'fizzles out,' there will be another DOGE before long, because Republicans will never stop looking for ways to slash programs that help vulnerable people, and there will always be someone like Musk who is willing do their dirty work in exchange for the chance to line his pockets.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Canada's stubby beer bottle finds new meaning in an age of American bluster
Forty years after its retirement as the industry standard bottle for beer in Canada, the stubby is being reinterpreted in an age marred by tariffs and American grievance — not as a cultural icon, but as a discreet way of protecting a national industry. In a research paper published this spring, Heather Thompson, a recent graduate of the public history program at Carleton University in Ottawa, argues that the stubby — squat, refillable and therefore largely unappealing to foreign brewers — functioned as a quiet and distinctly Canadian form of protectionism. "At the time, the Big Three, [Canadian Breweries Limited], Molson and Labatt's, they see the Americans coming and they knew they were very interested in the lucrative Canadian market. They needed something," she told CBC News. "The stubby is not a tariff, it's not government-imposed. It's as much an economic product as it is a cultural product." In today's climate of rising tariffs, "buy Canadian" policies and deepening trade tensions, the story of the stubby might feel less like historic footnote and more like a blueprint — for how Canada can still navigate life beside an economically dominant and often unpredictable neighbour. The stubby was introduced in 1961, at a time when Americans, who favoured non-recyclable aluminum cans, made their products in large centralized facilities and shipped their beer across the U.S. and to the world. The stubby, by contrast, was glass, but it was also cheap, durable and lightweight, making it easy to transport. It was also able to be reused up to 100 times. It was the keystone in a closed-loop Canadian bottling system that kept costs down for domestic brewers while it kept foreign brewers out by raising the cost of market entry. The bottle also fit neatly within Canada's fragmented domestic economy. Thanks to interprovincial trade barriers, brewers looking to sell in a given province often had to produce their beer there or face tariffs and restrictions when crossing provincial lines. By 1962, the year after the stubby was introduced, Canada's Big Three brewers controlled about 95 per cent of the Canadian beer market. They owned nearly all of the country's 61 breweries, which gave them a physical presence in every region of Canada. The Big Three also held a majority stake in Ontario's Beer Store, known then as the Brewing Warehousing Company Limited. When the stubby was made a packaging requirement for all beer sold at its stores in Ontario, Thompson argues, the Big Three effectively locked all foreign brewers out by creating an extra hurdle for entry into the market. "To bottle in the stubby, [American brewers] are going to have to make their own line at their plant to bottle specifically for Ontario," she said, noting any cost savings for American brewers through the reusable stubby would be eaten up in transportation costs by first shipping the beer to Canada then shipping it back the U.S. for a refill. Since almost all of Canada's breweries were owned by only three companies when the stubby was introduced in Ontario, the rest of the country followed suit in adopting the stubby because the bottle could be filled and reused in any bottling plant in any province by any Big Three brewer. On par with bagged milk, says history podcaster That kind of market consolidation meant for a generation of Canadian beer drinkers, from 1961 to 1984, the stubby was just about everywhere: on bar counters, fridges or sweating on the dock from St. John's to Victoria. It was also immortalized as a symbol of Canadian identity by the beer-swilling, tuque-wearing McKenzie brothers, who were a parody of Canadian working class culture in the early 1980s, near the end of the bottle's industry dominance. "When we think of the stubby, at least for me, I think of Bob and Doug McKenzie," said Craig Baird, host of the Canadian History Ehx! podcast, a show that looks back on the country's history. Baird said the only thing that comes close to what the stubby did, in terms of uniquely Canadian design and function, is bagged milk. Like the stubby, it's efficient, cost-effective and largely incomprehensible to outsiders, making it both a practical solution and marker of national identity. "If you look online, people say Canadians use bagged milk even though only Ontario and some other localized areas use bagged milk." Canadian brewers dropped the stubby in 1984, switching to taller long necks as American brands like Budweiser and Coors entered the market thanks, first, to licensing agreements with American brewers and then free trade with the U.S. The new bottles held the same 341 millilitres but offered more branding appeal. WATCH | Saying goodbye to the stubby: The stubby began to be phased out in 1985 and now largely exists only in antique stores and our collective memory. Reviving the spirit, if not the bottle In a global market shaped by trade battles and foreign ownership, Thompson sees the stubby as more than nostalgia. It's a reminder of what Canadian brewers once did to protect their market — and what they might do again. "We're seeing more interest in buying Canadian," she said. "It's a great opportunity for craft brewers to revive the stubby and its cultural power." While few brewers have returned to the squat bottle, its spirit lives on in projects such as Glorious and Free, a patriotic IPA first brewed by Dominion City Brewing in Ottawa. The recipe is shared with 40 breweries across Canada that have used hometown ingredients to create their own versions. "The idea for the campaign really came from a walk in the snow," Dominion City co-founder Josh McJannett said with an obvious nod to former prime minister Pierre Trudeau, a politician whose retirement followed "a walk in the snow" in 1984, the same year the stubby was put out to pasture. "The thought of stubby beer bottles around again is certainly appealing to the nostalgia in me," McJannett said, noting Glorious and Free is available in tallboy cans only. He said the recipe was crafted as a direct response to some of the frustration he was feeling over U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs and talk of annexation. "This was a way to harness that feeling and take some kind of an action," McJannett said. Firm, but polite. A beer that, like the stubby, refuses to be poured into anyone else's mould.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Truist Lifts Etsy Price Target Amid Surge in User Growth
Etsy, Inc. (NASDAQ:ETSY) is one of the best consumer cyclical stocks to buy. On June 17, Truist Securities maintained its Buy rating on Etsy, Inc. (NASDAQ:ETSY), but increased its price target to $60 from $ price target rise follows after Truist Card Data revealed that Etsy's Marketplace revenue quarter-to-date through June 11 is exceeding forecasts. Truist also observed a surge in the number of monthly active users, which increased year-over-year and reached its highest level in 22 months. This indicates that the company's growth activities are having a favorable impact. Along with increased marketing effectiveness that has allowed Etsy, Inc. (NASDAQ:ETSY) to win more ad auctions, these efforts also include improvements in product quality, particularly discoverability and quality score. Etsy, Inc. (NASDAQ:ETSY) operates two-sided online marketplaces that link millions of creative customers and sellers globally. The company manages Reverb, Depop, and Elo7 in addition to its main marketplace, Etsy, which specializes in unique and creative products. While we acknowledge the potential of ETSY as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. Read More: and Disclosure: None.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Senate pushes ahead on Trump tax cuts as nonpartisan analysis raises price tag
By Bo Erickson and Phil Stewart WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Senate version of President Donald Trump's sweeping tax-cut and spending bill will add $3.3 trillion to the nation's debt, about $800 billion more than the version passed last month by the House of Representatives, a nonpartisan forecaster said on Sunday. The Congressional Budget Office issued its estimate of the bill's hit to the $36.2 trillion federal debt as Senate Republicans sought to push the bill forward in a marathon weekend session. Republicans, who have long voiced concern about growing U.S. deficits and debt, have rejected the CBO's longstanding methodology to calculate the cost of legislation. But Democrats hope the latest, eye-widening figure could stoke enough anxiety among fiscally-minded conservatives to get them to buck their party, which controls both chambers of Congress. The Senate only narrowly advanced the tax-cut, immigration, border and military spending bill in a procedural vote late on Saturday, voting 51-49 to open debate on the 940-page megabill. Trump on social media hailed Saturday's vote as a "great victory" for his "great, big, beautiful bill." In an illustration of the depths of the divide within the Republican Party over the bill, Senator Thom Tillis said he would not seek re-election next year, after Trump threatened to back a primary challenger in retribution for Tillis' Saturday night vote against the bill. Tillis' North Carolina seat is one of the few Republican Senate seats seen as vulnerable in next year's midterm elections. He was one of just two Republicans to vote no on Saturday. Trump wants the bill passed before the July 4 Independence Day holiday. While that deadline is one of choice, lawmakers will face a far more serious deadline later this summer when they must raise the nation's self-imposed debt ceiling or risk a devastating default on $36.2 trillion in debt. 'We are going to make sure hardworking people can keep more of their money,' Senator Katie Britt, an Alabama Republican, told CNN's State of the Union on Sunday. HITS TO BENEFITS Senator Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia, said this legislation would come to haunt Republicans if it gets approved, predicting 16 million Americans would lose their health insurance. "Many of my Republican friends know ... they're walking the plank on this and we'll see if those who've expressed quiet consternation will actually have the courage of their convictions," Warner told CBS News' "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan." The legislation has been the sole focus of a marathon weekend congressional session marked by political drama, division and lengthy delays as Democrats seek to slow the legislation's path to passage. Top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer called for the entire text of the bill to be read on the Senate floor, a process that began before midnight Saturday and ran well into Sunday afternoon. Following that lawmakers will begin up to 20 hours of debate on the legislation. That will be followed by an amendment session, known as a "vote-a-rama," before the Senate votes on passage. Lawmakers said they hoped to complete work on the bill on Monday. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, the other Republican "no" vote, opposed the legislation because it would raise the federal borrowing limit by an additional $5 trillion. "Did Rand Paul Vote 'NO' again tonight? What's wrong with this guy???" Trump said on social media. The megabill would extend the 2017 tax cuts that were Trump's main legislative achievement during his first term as president, cut other taxes and boost spending on the military and border security. Representative Michael McCaul, however, warned that fellow Republicans who do not back Trump on the bill could face payback from voters. "They know that their jobs are at risk. Not just from the president, but from the voting -- the American people. Our base back home will not reelect us to office if we vote no on this," McCaul also told CBS News. Senate Republicans, who reject the CBO's estimates on the cost of the legislation, are set on using an alternative calculation method that does not factor in costs from extending the 2017 tax cuts. Outside tax experts, like Andrew Lautz from the nonpartisan think tank Bipartisan Policy Center, call it a "magic trick." Using this calculation method, the Senate Republicans' budget bill appears to cost substantially less and seems to save $500 billion, according to the BPC analysis. If the Senate passes the bill, it will then return to the House of Representatives for final passage before Trump can sign it into law. The House passed its version of the bill last month. (Writing by Phil Stewart; Editing by Scott Malone and Chris Reese) Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data